CIA & Torture: Yes, it's evidence

That our government allows for the torture during the interrogation of terror suspects (never mind what they say -- watch what they do) is a source of shame and shock.

But the sheer chicanery with which the evidence of the brutish treatment was handled itself is breathtaking. We learned earlier this month that videotapes of two al-Qaida operatives being interrogated using harsh techniques, such as waterboarding, were destroyed by the CIA in November of 2005. Five months before that, a U.S. District Court judge had ordered the government to preserve "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at ... Guantanamo Bay." The excuses given for what was done to the tapes were weak -- the identity of the agents needed to be protected (we think some in higher pay grades were protecting themselves), and besides, those interrogations didn't take place in Cuba, so the tapes didn't count as evidence that ought to be protected, right? Wrong.

On Wednesday, The New York Times reported a story (the White House has consistently refused to comment), telling us that no fewer than four of President Bush's lawyers (including Lawyer of the Year Alberto Gonzales) were in on the talks on what to do with the tapes.

Yet, we're expected to trust the Justice Department to investigate itself even as it asks Congress to back off plans for an immediate hearing. We agree with Georgetown law professor Jonathan Turley, who says he's "seen more reputable conduct from mob attorneys." There's no way Congress should postpone a hearing.